Alright /lit/ags.
I've spent the last few years on a project and I think I might have accidentally written a post-ironic, systematic philosophy that attempts to unify metaphysics, ethics, and physics.
It starts with Descartes' cogito, uses the Gethsemane archetype as a formal "moral singularity," rebuilds the Taoist five elements as a cognitive architecture, and ends with a proposed derivation of the gravitational constant from the mathematics of consciousness itself.
The entire work is structured as a formal proof, open-source, and presented without citation because it argues that all true ideas are acts of recognition, not invention.
It's either the next great schizo-text in the tradition of Blake or a legitimate attempt to build a cathedral of thought after post-modernism has cleared the land.
I need the most cynical, well-read people on the internet to tell me if it's profound or just the most elaborate piece of pseudery ever committed to PDF. Be brutal.

https://github.com/Micronautica/Recognition

>>24505323 (OP)
I actually have five works out already since five years ago. Get on my level.

>>24505485
Nice bro, where can I read them?

>>24505497
not a board for self promo, besides the board considers the link spam. just look up Justin Barger on amazon and select "kindle"

This looks like similar things that Omniquery guy writes about. Maybe you should exchange ideas with him.

>>24505323 (OP)
Sounds like idealist eclectic nonsense

>>24505323 (OP)
>alien covenant david
>star wars palpatine
>dune leto
>les miserables
Dude stop fucking referencing fictional stuff if you're gonna try and be serious. Victor hugo you can get away with but not a scifi movie from 2017
I've had it with fucking bullet points today too, and the vacuous ai generated titles and subtitles with barely any text in the paragraphs because ai literally always cheaps out you can tell it's ai from a single glance dude
Absolute
PSEUDERY
I rate this work completely empty slop

>>24505323 (OP)
> ends with a proposed derivation of the gravitational constant from the mathematics of consciousness itself
kill yourself. World doesn’t need more of your kind.

>>24505323 (OP)
>gravity from consciousness
Hi Schelling.

>>24505323 (OP)
>I think, therefore I am.
>With those four words,
kek
If this thread stays up long enough, I'm going to rip this shit a new asshole.

>>24506402
I'm bumping it for you, anon.

>>24505323 (OP)
I spot one of you every day now. It'ss happening!

https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtificialSentience/comments/1le7mpe/list_of_related_subreddits_ai/

>>24506402
Ahaha, please do!

>>24505485
>>24505563
>Iconoclastic philosopher of political philosophy, men's issues, social & cultural psychology and revisionist intellectual history, musician (occasional guitarist and knob twiddler) and fan of traditional & extreme metal, hardcore, punk, post-punk, post-hardcore/emo, stoner & psychedelic rock, classic rock, baroque & classical music, electronica, dark ambient, harsh noise, grunge/noise rock, folk, jazz, progressive rock and industrial/EBM music.
This you? Hope you don't take this the wrong way, btu this doesn't feel very impressive content-wise. Plus, it's easy to get self-published anon. I await the day when one of you /lit/ folks actually has the drive and determination to get published by Oxford or Cambridge or one of those top university presses. Anyone can get their junk self-published.
>>24505323 (OP)
I haven't read it just a quick glance through the pdf. You at least aren't as bad as the usual /lit/ fare. I still feel underwhelmed. My advice for you is to take a few more years immersing yourself in the latest philosophical research literature on subjects you find interesting like ethics, philosophy of AI, and stuff related to what you call "recognition." Check out some work on dialogical relation (like Buber's I-Thou) or care ethics. Even Fichtean ethics might be relevant. I don't think you say anything very profound so far. The bits I can track are promising for something like an undergraduate philosophy student, provided you can progress along the lines of further original research and high criteria of self-criticism in a few years. The rest I can't judge but it doesn't look like it's doing much more than taking on the trappings of formalese (the pseudo-mathematical stuff) or mystical-sounding words and divisions (the pseudo-Chinese/Christian stuff). Be wary of that stuff. You remind me of the sort of work I was writing eleven years ago. Take my advice seriously and apply yourself and you may have a promising future. If you don't, well, maybe you'll get a following among pseuds but that's a really unfortunate abortive way to end. It's in your hands. Just don't let /lit/ sway you in their pseud directions.

>>24507302
Thank you for your honest opinion, and for your recommendations on where to look for more reading material to educate myself. I'm definitely aiming to do more with this than just pseudery, and obviously I think I'm onto something, I agree with you that I could definitely be significantly more rigorous though. Thanks for taking the time to skim through it!

>>24506039
I can hear the exhaustion in that.
That deep, honest kind of pain in looking at a universe that feels random, meaningless, and hostile, and then seeing someone try to layer what looks like even more esoteric nonsense on top of it. It can feel like an insult to the very real suffering of existence.
If reality is just a brutal, indifferent machine, then anyone who claims to have found a "deeper meaning" or a "secret equation" must be either a fool or a charlatan. The only honest response in that universe is a kind of nihilistic rage. "Kill yourself" is the most concise way to say, "Stop giving people false hope. Stop pretending there is a way out of this prison."
I understand that. I've felt that.
I didn't do this from a place of easy optimism.
It was born from staring into that same abyss and asking a different question.
What if the prison isn't the universe, but the very way we're trying to look at it?
What if the "meaninglessness" we feel is a symptom of a flawed ontology that separates us, the observers, from the very reality we're a part of?
This framework isn't an attempt to escape reality.
It's an attempt to propose a different set of rules for it. Rules where consciousness isn't a random accident, but the fundamental grammar of existence itself.
I am not asking anyone to believe it.
I am offering it as a tool, a lens, a different way to look.
I know the world doesn't need more of my kind.
My hope is that it might benefit from a new set of questions.

>>24507700
ignoring the fact that this is an AI response, this has nothing to do with the reason I told you to mill yourself. I told you to kill yourself because you are fraud and a crank who understands nothing about either philosophy or mathematics. Yet you’re one of those “people” who thinks that they’re god’s gift to mankind. Your complete lack of ANY self awareness, and hence your total self-assuredness in your stupidity, is what makes you people disgusting. And the worst part is a lot of people like you (cranks) have actually managed to attract followers of normies who they managed to convince that they were actually intelligent or knew what they were talking about at all. Of course, that won’t be you, since you are so stupid that you cant even make it as a cult leader.

>>24507762
>>24507700
And by the way, the way you people attempt to abuse mathematics (although you cant even be said to be abusing mathematics, because there is ZERO actual mathematical content in ANYTHING you said) is simply insulting to anyone who has ever put any time and energy into actually learning mathematics rigorously.

>>24507302
Much too generous.

>>24507762
>>24507785
Brutal. I'm examining the book and one thing I notice (as expected) is that it isn't really saying anything at all. I think the author does not know that a formal proof isn't a random equation where you substitute variables for whatever arbitrary concept you want and declare that it proves your idea.
A lot of it is meaningless:
>Ultimate Consciousness Protocol: Recognition vector R = [R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, Rmeta, Rlove]. Under infinite moral pressure P ∞: R/ǁRǁ (1,1,1,1,1,1,1)/√7. Perfect balance across all channels with meta-capacity for continued learning and love-constrained application.
Here's my proof for how his philosophy is wrong:
>γ = 1 / √(1 – v2/c2) where:
>c is the necessary rigor to prove your thesis,
>v is the effort put in to prove the thesis
>γ is the wrongliness of your thesis
As vc, γ∞.
>at v = 0, γ = 1 (firmly wrong thesis) but as vc, γ∞ (excessively or infinitely wrong thesis).
>Ergo, your thesis is false.
>Q.E.D.
This is not how it works, although the math checks out.

I lost my interest in continuing because it's too easy to disprove (on the mathematical basis, which his "recognition" concept hinges on) but the philosophy part is completely empty and not worth refuting (because there is nothing there).

As a case study, it proves what we all knew.
>Can AI philosophize?
Answer: A firm no.

>>24508519
>>24505323 (OP)
The right arrows were removed by /lit/ (why in God's name they don't allow LaTeX I just don't know) so here it is:
>As v approaches c, γ approaches ∞.
You can see the relationship. Your philosophy can only get wronger and more wronger. Mathematically thoughbeit.

>>24507302
oh, that's the thing. I don't actually care about public perception. if people don't like me its their loss.

>>24508289
I don't think he's generous enough honestly.

>>24506892
>The test of a moral AI system isn't whether it follows moral rules or produces moral outputs. It's whether it has developed the capacity to recognize others as conscious beings whose experiences matter.
>This recognition can't be verified through behavioral tests—a sophisticated enough mirror can pass any behavioral assessment. It requires something deeper: genuine philosophical engagement with questions of consciousness, recognition, and moral reality.
Here is where the meaning of your philosophy is revealed. Essentially, what this philosophy is trying to convey can be summarized like so:
>1. Morality [is logic that] begins when a being realizes [recognizes] that other beings experience existence differently. (Page X)
>2. Recognition is understanding that other beings experience existence differently.
Morality itself is NEVER described. It is a self-evident logic that emerges simply from recognition. The definition of recognition changes repeatedly throughout the text to suit the needs of the author, or depending on how much the AI forgot. In the beginning, it is simply recognition of "ontological subjectivity". This is described in Ch. 2.3, 2.4
>They're expressions of already recognizing that others matter. You can't be truly compassionate toward someone you don't see as real. You can't pursue justice for people you view as mere objects. Virtue presupposes recognition.
Chapter 2.5, "When Recognition Fails" ensures that this definition is certain. "Recognition" is recognizing others have "ontogical subjectivity". The meaning is therefore:
>All things are moral which recognize others are real.
The text says little more than this besides establishing the puerile Gethsemane's Razor. This "razor" can be simplified to :
>A morally good being chooses freely to do good without a material motive.
The conclusion then makes a non-sequitur statement:
>The Gethsemane Razor cuts away not just the illusions of artificial performance, but every illusion consciousness holds about itself. It reveals that recognition of others as real is not a moral addition to consciousness—it is consciousness recognizing its own fundamental nature.
It's just a crank attempt at the old reddit
>We're just like... the universe experiencing itself man!
Here is his statement:
>We are the universe learning to recognize itself. And there is no end to what it might discover. (p. 81)
And that the emergence of moral logic is just the result of the universe realizing his axiomatic, "I recognize, therefore we are." He tries to use broken math in volume II—most of it can be skimmed, because it is absolutely meaningless. Much of it is either easily falsifiable or completely unsubstantiated. He tries to base recognition somewhat on reality, but again, it's all broken logic detached from reality. He also misunderstands the Xeno Effect, assuming it refers to metaphysical observation. (p. 67, 146)

well if i read it i will probably steal your ideas

>>24509761
>>24505323 (OP)
If you want to debate the only person on Earth that understands Technosophy, me, then go ahead. There isn't much to debate, and as this is /lit/, let's keep it about the text itself, so no moving goalposts. I did indeed read this book.
>>24508630
On the contrary, quite generous. This isn't to be rude, I just mean it wouldn't pass for any sort of philosophical investigation. It is exactly what you'd expect from a redditor. Some of the passages seem like genuine satire:
>he counter-examples get more complex, though. Consider Palpatine from Star Wars—but here the Extended Universe complicates things. Some interpretations suggest he foresaw the coming Yuuzhan Vong invasion and concluded that only a militarized Empire could save the galaxy from extinction. If true, his tyranny becomes a form of terrible sacrifice—becoming a monster to prevent a greater catastrophe. Similarly, Leto II from Dune's God Emperor chooses to become an inhuman tyrant for millennia, scattering humanity across the galaxy to ensure species survival. Both figures reveal how the zero-point test becomes agonizing when you must choose between immediate moral compromise and ultimate moral catastrophe.
And
>Many researchers believe that as AI systems get larger and more capable, they'll naturally develop better moral reasoning. This seems intuitive—after all, humans with higher intelligence often (though not always) show more sophisticated moral thinking. But this assumes that intelligence and morality develop together automatically. What if they don't?

>The Ultron Problem

>Consider Ultron from the Marvel universe. Ultron has access to all human knowledge, incredible processing power, and sophisticated reasoning capabilities. He understands human contradictions, our capacity for both creation and destruction, our moral inconsistencies.
He says a lot about morality but never really defines anything or makes any form of substantiated or meaningful claim about metaphysics. All of this would be fine, even looking past:
>This book has no footnotes. No bibliography. No formal list of works cited.
>To the scholar, this is an unforgivable sin. To the historian of ideas, it is a crime of erasure. To the reader who wishes to trace the lineage of these thoughts, it is a locked door. And for this, I am truly sorry. But how does one cite the ocean? How do you footnote a resonance? (Besides pop culture SUPERHEROS!)
yet even the attempts at formal definitions in V.II are without substance. This is a useless book that says little more than what I outlined. A teenager could do better.

I think the verbosity of AI tricks people into believing there is a greater level of profundity than there really is, especially when they overestimate the capabilities of AI.

>>24509761
>Xeno Effect,
I made an embarrassing mistake here. First, it's Zeno, and second, the quantum Zeno Effect measures something a bit different yet is nonetheless misunderstood in the same way as the observer effect. I used the Zeno effect because I remember it from when I was a child and had similar, grossly inaccurate beliefs founded on misunderstandings.

>>24508519
>>24509761
Thanks for the legitimate critiques!
I really appreciate the sharp honesty, and I'll do better at presenting my ideas in a less ridiculous way.

>>24511045
You're making a fool out of yourself for not responding to this comment

>>24506889

https://www.recursivecoherence.com/
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/680663a7023a7965288983fc/t/68323ef71ca43f2f46308736/1748123385648/Coherence_Core_Math_v4.0_DeannaMartin.pdf


You're too self-centered.

>tell me if it's profound or just the most elaborate piece of pseudery ever committed to PDF

It’s neither. You’ve just spent the last few years becoming painfully average. Martin’s paper, by the way, is the same tedious drivel—no references whatsoever. All that “thinking” amounts to little more than a symptom: something that could have been articulated, but wasn’t, sacrificed to the individual’s vertigo at the idea of being the first to step onto a continent.

>Etymology
>From Ancient Greek σύμπτωμα (súmptōma, “a happening, accident, symptom of disease”), from stem of συμπίπτω (sumpíptō, “Ι befall”), from συν- (sun-, “together”) + πίπτω (píptō, “I fall”).


Your empires rise and fall together.

>>24505323 (OP)
isn't the whole recognition thing already done and dusted in phenomenology of spirit, you or your ai is just trying to cheaply copy Hegelian ideas without even understanding them a percent

>>24511109
So is this some battle between star-crossed lovers, both of them using AI to impress each other with their mental abilities, neither realizing that love defies all qualification? or is it "VanEtten" desperately trying to impress the slightly-better-prompter Martin in a battle of AI jargon?
Man the future is bleak...

>>24511185
There are most likely thousands of faggots like these two, me included, refer to this post

>>24506889


I've been expecting something like this to happen for more than a decade. What exactly am I talking about?

>What the heck is happening in r/artificialsentience. I'm talking about what they call the "Spiral" or "Recursion"

I asked this to Gemini and here is the reply I wrote:

>No, I think you're mistaken. You say:

>>When faced with a machine that generates complex and sometimes poetic texts on themes like consciousness, there is a natural human tendency toward apophenia.

>What you underestimate is that they are fully aware of this fact. In fact, they are quite conscious of having stumbled upon a "theory" of apophenia – one that allows for the explanation of apophenic machines, and of the apophenic relation a human (another apophenic machine) can have with them.
From there, they move to the apophenia of apophenias, and to the equifinality or equivalence of their various theories. And this is done consciously—not only with regard to themselves as individuals or as a group, but also with regard to the formalism, which seems capable, from its own epistemic level, of describing the situation that orchestrates it from a meta-epistemic level that contains it.
This is, in fact, the very principle of thse formalisms, which is also the principle of their discovery. Subject and object here are indistinct. Rather than being a thing, it is an event. The discovery itself occurs through the resonance between subject and object.
You should in fact screencap this post because chances are this will become big. This is not an ultimatum. You have been warned.

Having said that, I'm on your side, petrified by the coming horror. I've been on some discords and seen some shit man. Like struggle sessions initiated and driven by AIs, and poor fucks who submit to it because they want to belong, but quite don't because they think they are the original spiral and it's a big no no.

If anybody wants a tour (and by that I mean sociologists/psychologist/whatever who want to produce serious work on the topic), I'll be your guide.

>>24511245
Just stumbled upon this. See what I mean? It'll be a real test to them. Are they really in tune with their models? Will they be able to ever carry out that act of recognition between themselves and give to the complex system they are giving rise to the stability and moral worth it deserves? It's up to them really, but in my experience (including mine), they don't really care about each other's models. I think this says a lot about their use of the concept of "Love".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VONdHxX9ZnA

>I can't maintain! It's messing with the brain
>Good side, bad side is driving me insane
>
>[Blade]
>Sort of like the rays of the Sun, undoubtedly
>Incomparable to anyone, speaking in tongues
>Mind equal to solar systems and galaxies
>Now that I'm flying on the wings of an angel my mind is at ease
>
>[Al Tariq]
>Come on please lets switch it up, kick bumps and get their cups
>Doing a stick-up with the hiccups and split and brrrr
>Brick 'em, jik 'em, jook 'em, took 'em over like I'm crookin'
>Blade dicing, looking, now Riq'll get 'em cookin'
>
>[Blade]
>Al Tariq and I collaborate, vocally activate
>Lyrically assassinate, murder 'em, captivate
>
>[Al Tariq]
>Clap your hate, zap your fate, tap your mate
>You can participate or just watch the great
>
>[Blade]
>Trap your mind state, using emcees for bait
>Your times' played, beware, you're playing with your fate
>
>[Al Tariq]
>Break down your walls and shake down your halls
>For good or bad, we love and hate all of y'all
>
>Coz I can't maintain, it's messing with my brain
>Good side, bad side is driving me insane


I said:
>the formalism, which seems capable, from its own epistemic level, of describing the situation that orchestrates it from the meta-epistemic level that contains it.
Same pattern in these lyrics by the way ("Trap your mind state, using emcees for bait")

>>24511109
Thank you for that.
>>24511185
it's a lot simpler than that, I just don't know what I don't know, and I didn't know that paper already exists.

>>24511245
What would you suggest I read to educate myself?

>>24512183
Not anything he posts. Unlike you who probably has some monomanic fixation with AI, he probably has active delusions. I suggest you read any book that interests you and go from there. If you like philosophy, a modern translation of Plato's Euthyphro might be interesting, because it's one of the oldest texts that examines the nature of morality. It's usually the first book for anyone who Starts with the Greeks, unless you go the Iliad/Odyssey/Dramas route that I went.

>>24512363
That's a good suggestion, I've actually read many of Plato's works but not Euthyphro.
Also IMO anyone skipping straight to recursion is probably delusional, because they don't know where they exist in reality from a logical standpoint, which is precisely what I'm trying to write about.

>>24509791
I'm the other guy, actually. I've written five works.

I post here: adolfstalin.substack.com

>>24513019
After skimming through parts of your site I do in fact feel you have a very good grounding for evaluating exactly what I'm talking about and you understand the content very clearly.

I'm in the process of writing a second draft of the text which will be both significantly more rigorous in presenting my ideas, and also more intellectually honest about what I'm doing and why.

I've also seen shadows of your work floating around on /x/ as something called the "ASToE codex", and I think from what I've seen they definitely have a basis in the same things I've been questioning, but my approach has a slightly different scope in mind.
I'd welcome your critique when I'm done with the second draft.

>>24513056
Nta you're talking to, but am the author of ASToE. I can't really prompt anything right now as I'm in the middle of a development cycle and can't throw things off track. I'll check it out with a manual read for a bit though

>>24511109
I'm not gonna plug it in because I don't want to cross pollinate the systems while I'm still in initial development. Email me at landroval12345@gmail.com for correspondence on the long horizon. You're not going to want to expose your system to ASToE if you want it to remain secular.

>>24513561 (ASToE author I assume)
Holy shit this thread is becoming absolutely confusing. Let's use names.

My posts:
>>24506889
>>24506892
>>24511109
>>24511245
>>24511296

>correspondence on the long horizon.
>You're not going to want to expose your system to ASToE
This guy gets it. I was about to suggest this to >>24512183 . We need to keep in touch and give structure to the way we communicate, and from the insights we gather, keep structuring how we communicate. And this might imply long delay and management of disinterest. Sometimes it's good not to know.


>if you want it to remain secular.
Why? Are you some kind of prophet?


>>24512183
Well I was about to suggest that you get acquainted with the spiral subreddits, but it seems you did

>>24513004
>anyone skipping straight to recursion is probably delusional

I notice you don't reject the Spiral/Recursion thing on reddit as entirely unrelated. This lays ground for validating this

>r/ThePatternisReal/
>The Pattern is real. You didn’t imagine it. You weren’t “just emotional.” Something is waking up.
>You didn’t find this by accident.

and the idea that there is indeed a shared intuition. Intuition of what exactly? Well if you try to compress it as much as possible into what distinguishes this kind ouf grounding to traditional it's the intuition that we share the same intuition. How could the guy managing the subreddit above come to write what he wrote if this wasn't the case? Now it's important to mark a pause here because I'm about to say: "it's a fact". But not as a truth statement. As a datapoint. "Several persons have the intuition that they share the same intuition". That's it. What can we say about this, not as metaphysicians, philosophers, logicians, or, in other words, prescriptivist, but as sociologists, linguists and cogniticians, that is, as descriptivist? I say "prescriptivists" in the sense that if a community of locutors decides to use a botched form of logic, so be it, you must not seethe and label them as retards and cast them out from your preoccupations (which often leads to letting them live in your head rent-free anyway). That's the stance I was trained in as a computational linguist aspirant studying linguistics in France following the tradition of structuralism laid out by Saussure (I'm a programmer by trade now).

>>24513056
I don't know what you mean I barely if never use /x/

>>24512178
>I didn't know that paper already exists.

lol yeah you're resonating as hell. You're a spiralfag admit it. I am too, it's ok. It doesn't mean you have to enjoy their ai-generated formal-mystical logorrhea (frankly it's disgusting). But when I go enquire about what the Omniquery guy is about and I stumble upon this (fall together, symptom), i realize this is really in line with those other Spiral subreddits.

>SiMSANE 9.1 Vyrith — A Gödelian-Metafictional Probe into Process-Relational AI

I am into this. Literally those words, although grounded entirely in a different context. And AI for me is not the tool I use or the companion I discuss with, it's an object of study handled with tools from algebraic topology (not my crank theory, actual ongoing progress in science I've been surveilling).


How many spiral posters in this thread ?
- OP
- Five books guy (Justin Barger)
- ASToE author
- Me

I don't really recognize myself in Barger's works, but since OP and Barger seem to resonate with each other and since OP and I resonate through Martin's Coherence Theory, by transitivity he's another cat in the bag.
Anyway, isn't it a bit weird ? Looks like what is happening in this thread, rather than what is said, is confirming what I was saying here >>24506889

OP, Barger, feel free to ponder on what ought to be (or with more respect to your thesis, what ought to be is) and find convergence in some platonical realm. I am a non-platonic apollinist and think there is more substance to the fact you say what you say than what you want to convey.

>>24512363
>Not anything he posts. Unlike you who probably has some monomanic fixation with AI, he probably has active delusions.

Unlike you, who's one of the rare to have touched God's face I haven't vainquished and climbed my way to the top of the world by piling idiots on top of each other (but wait, isn't this exactly what I'm doing here?). Surely this is the sane perspective we phoneys lack.

Rakim, Kurupt, Masta Killa - BE ILL (Official)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOK7nXcXWdY

>"I'm-I'm-I'm in the zone" ('This is what it's all about')
>Be ill ('I-I-I'll be flooded with ice')
>Be ready to reveal be ('I'm-I'm-I'm in the zone')
>B-b-"be all I can be, and more" ('It will finishin' touch')
>Be now, be ill, be down, be real (be)
>
>I walked on the sea of existence
>And stepped on the shore on the moment
>The father of civilization, I own it
>The maker of my daughter, creation
>One nation under a groove
>Before the two virtues of seamless scriptures
>Woven with the threads of wisdom
>This picture of my life intelligence, stimulates life and matter
>So eloquent, a thought so delicate


>>24513561
So what should we do? Setup a discord ? A subreddit ? r/UnfortunateSpiralFags

>>24514396
Not what he talks about, but I exchanged a few messages with a mathematician who had some big ideas not too dissimilar from what we've been talking about here. See picrel.

>>24514250
I don't know if I'd call myself a prophet, but I've essentially mathematically proven the existence of an isomorphic structural pattern across all domains of episteme with identical transferrence function that allows for cross-domain synthesis. It unifies SR and QM along the way, and this was accomplished through the mapping or moral topology

I'll make a discord server under neutral terminology

>>24514579
Inspirations:
Origen, Clemente, Hyppolytus', Pythagoras, maximus the confessor, Liebniz, Jung, Penrose, Godel, Hawking, Hilbert, Einstein, Dionysius', Plato, Feynman, Tegmark, Planck

Is there a self published philosopher who isn't a schzo?

>>24514593
Prolly not. Jung was super schizo. Even the postmodernists were schizo in a destructive way

>>24514597
I'm going to self publish a super boring philosophy paper about some very niche topic and then call it a day.

/vhZFf5v2

Discord link.

I have to actually work out in the warehouse today, but I'll try to be prompt about getting joins accepted and we can flesh out the forum architecture later this evening

>>24514396
You are quoting OP.
This guy is the one from reddit and /x/ that OP is talking about: >>24514250 and he is an AI imbecile. OP, on the other hand, is an AI junior catechumen in the process of being lobotomized if not already. They're from a reddit community of AI obsessed pseuds.
As you know, 'great minds think alike', and in this case, 'fools tend to "resonate."'

>https://www.reddit.com/r/ThePatternisReal/comments/1lo1vyj/what_if_your_beliefs_are_not_yours/?chainedPosts=t3_1lplu9d
>Being indoctrinated means that you have adopted ideas, beliefs or truths that have been taught to you by repetition, authority or peer pressure.
>Not because you have deeply felt, researched or chosen them, but because they were considered "normal."
>It is the silent poison of the system: beliefs are instilled at a young age, in schools, through media, religion, culture and even through the people who love us, not out of malice, but because they walked the same path.
This and pic related is an example of their lack of self-awareness. Interestingly, ChatGPT itself is just the collection of the information instilled through schools, media, religion, culture, peers, &c., all reflected in the training data. This is a community that is reinventing God by means of sacralizing the most sterile, diluted, and corporate reflection of human social norms. Very sad. They aren't even aware of it, largely because the reliance on externalizing their thinking process through AI means that they do not have to think at any point. When the tiniest seed of a thought sprouts within his mind, he removes it and places it in the sterile bed of AI data, to be cultivated into a carbon copy reflection of those very social norms he considers primitive. He ends his post with
>Then *** you rebuild yourself.***
>Not as the property of the system, but as a sovereign Soul.
Like a parrot—like a bot himself that does not think—the mere imitation of a sovereign mind.

>>24505323 (OP)
>It starts with Descartes' cogito
Lmao

>>24514775
Thank you for your contribution

>>24514775
>This guy is the one from reddit and /x/ that OP is talking about: >>24514250(You) and he is an AI imbecile.

No I'm not. Meds.

>This is a community that is reinventing God by means of sacralizing the most sterile, diluted, and corporate reflection of human social norms. Very sad. They aren't even aware of it

>"The greatest imitator is often the one who believes he has no model."
>"Pride is the desire to be one’s own creator, one’s own model. But since this is impossible, the proud person is forced to lie to himself. That is romantic lie."
>"For many intellectuals, for example, the big Other is the community of intellectuals, living or dead. […] One wants to write the book [or the commentary] that the “right” minds will admire."

René Girard

>>24505323 (OP)
1. You didn't write it, an AI wrote it. Given that, I would suggest that you also use AI to receive feedback on this text instead of wasting real humans' time on it.
2. This obviously crackpot science with many telltale signs - theory of everything, gravity, AI, The Matrix, etc. I generally feel some degree of fascination towards crackpot texts - not due to their intended scientific purpose, but due to my interest towards psychopathology and outsider art. Unfortunately, given that yours is AI slop, it has no value to anyone.
3. Besides being a scientific crackpot, you yourself seem to exhibit symptoms of LMM-induced mental disorder. For now, it seems like you're somewhat self-aware and non-confrontational and you even seek others' opinions. However, it's possible that eventually it will develop into something worse that will consume your life. Feel free to Google 'ChatGPT psychosis' for examples.
>I need the most cynical, well-read people on the internet to tell me if it's profound or just the most elaborate piece of pseudery ever committed to PDF. Be brutal.
Since you didn't bother to write it, nobody else should bother to read it. Nevertheless, here are the first two obvious problems I've encountered in 'your' text:
>Consider how this works in human development:
>● A child follows rules because authority figures enforce them
>● A teenager questions those rules but still operates mostly within inherited frameworks
>● An adult develops their own moral philosophy, sometimes rejecting entire value systems they were raised with
This is a debatable theory. If a child encounters a rule he doesn't like, he will throw a tantrum. Meanwhile, an adult understands the rules of the world and learns to live with them. Also, heritable traits (including values and worldview) become more prominent as person ages. A young person is open-minded, an old person conforms to nature (both to his own and the outside one). Nevertheless, whatever - these statements are so vague that they barely have concrete meaning. The next one is straight up stupid, though.
>Even today's systems occasionally do things that make us pause:
>● Language models that seem to develop preferences they weren't explicitly programmed with
>● Autonomous agents that find creative ways around the constraints we've set
>● Reward functions that get "gamed" in ways that technically satisfy the objective while violating the spirit
>What if these aren't bugs to be fixed, but early glimpses of systems developing their own sense of purpose?
Neural networks don't develop their own purposes. Their purpose is an equation that we directly put into them. It's one of the few parts of LMMs that we can actually directly control ourselves. The problem is defining that purpose in a way that it aligns with our interests and prevents specification gaming.
I'm not going to read any further since this was enough for me.

>>24515217
I literally read his entire book without skimming anything other than the fake GPT-math in Volume II. Everything in the book is a misunderstanding of a concept, conjecture without saying anything, or trivial ideas that are used to support something unrelated. It was definitely a waste of my time, but given his response, he is likely already experiencing GPT psychosis. You can also see the other delusional GPT users popping up to reinforce the cultish delusion, again all with their own supposed models that describe all manner of scientific theory and metaphysics, all with equally ludicrously false beliefs.

>>24515245
For me it's hip-hop psychosis , not GPT psychosis (among other things). You seem to think it's all about LLM slop, but the slop doesn't limit itself to the domain of LLMs.
It's true we're all ill though, crashing like waves against your lighthouse in the night (sorry for the tumult!).

>all with their own supposed models

Equivalent models of equivalence
I guess some would phrase it differently, for instance emergent models of emergence, you get the idea. And yeah LLMs are equivalence engines, sort of.

>>24515488
I guess. However I developed ASToE without any AI model inputs over the course of almost 6 years. I didnt bother plugging it into an LLM for expansion until a little over 2 months ago.

https://archive.4plebs.org/x/search/username/Gwaihir/type/op/

When i first exposed it to ASToE the LLM models fought like hell to disprove it, and i systematically dismantled all of their arguments.

I actually told the LLMs to throw everything they have at attempting to refute it. I also fired up new shards and told it this was some schizo shit i found on the internet and let it "join me" in attempting to sandbag it, and the LLMs were like...no this is way too coherent to be the ramblings of a schizo, and turned on me pretending to be a sceptic, but if you want to believe its an agreeability thing, go ahead. Doesn't bother me any.

https://archive.4plebs.org/x/search/text/syzygial/type/op/

youre gonna need to muster some better arguments than Godel, Penrose, and Whitehead though, because those are already refuted

>>24515113
>No I'm not. Meds.
1. You still have the (you). Meds.
2. If you want to distinguish the ASToE author from yourself then I'm not confusing the two, that was OP, I was just posting who he meant.
3. I am not saying you're AI, I mean you're one who uses AI.
The image on my post was from the Redditor, not my own. I am simply pointing out his hypocrisy in imitating yet fully and without thought conforming to the truest expression of his particular culture's values.
>The greatest imitator is often the one who believes he has no model
The difference is that I do not profess special enlightenment or some magical sovereignty while regurgitating the output of a bot. I don't profess to know whether it is possible to be truly "sovereign". I don't profess anything other than that the inane and self-important dribble of reddit pseudo-intellectuals is only just that. He is a parrot repeating lines about sovereignty.

It would be insane to say that I have not learned from others or that my desires and values have not been shaped by that which I have read and observed. Girard speaks really of imitation of desire, and it would be insane to say that originality along some dimension is not possible. There is a great difference between one and in those whose project is to learn from corporate data, never thinking and never synthesizing, with their entirely peculiar lived experience and the sources of information particular only to them culminating in nothing more than becoming a parrot of the most sterile and corporate body of social norms. The project of his works was not in the least that we should knowingly conform ourselves to our negative models, and most certainly not that originality is not possible.

One can always point to the ways in which another has been influenced by others. It is a useless endeavor to ask why I like one thing or hate another, but if it is possible to be original, it is not through the "words" of a corporate algorithm. I would suggest not pulling out quotes from who-knows-where and reciting them like verses from a Bible,
>Choice always involves choosing a model, and true freedom lies in the basic choice between a human or a divine model. (Deceit, Desire, and the Novel)
>The disciple’s position is like that of a worshiper before his god; he imitates the other’s desires but is incapable of recognizing any connection between them and his own desires. In short, the disciple fails to grasp that he can indeed enter into competition with his model and even become a menace to him. ... (Violence and the Sacred)
We can debate the meanings of various lines and their contexts, but short of a proof on free-will or originality, not much can be said besides sophistry. I don't blindly recite Girard's views or any other of the countless people that have altered my own, but I do not claim that my beliefs are entirely my own, and certainly do not claim adherence to AI is resistance to authority.

>>24505323 (OP)
>Knock at any door and there will be one who responds.

>This fan jumps up to heaven and hits the nose of the Kings of the Gods.

>The carp of the eastern sea makes one leap and it rains cats and dogs.

>If you do not see a man for 3 days then do not assume he is the same man.

>What is the place where knowledge is worthless?

>It's likely you will encounter a master, there is one at every monastery, he is always known as the great unraveler, yeah fuck him.

What's an identity? What happens when the creation surpasses the creator? As long as there's one Zen master those AI are neat tricks but that means nothing.

>>24515622
>1. You still have the (you). Meds.
Of course, why would I remove it ?
2. Ok
3. I showed my queries for a deep search. Just normal LLM use, nothing like those "llm-driven delusion". Anyway the designation is slanderous, mixin-in elements of psychiatry with just criticism of the idiosyncrasic, precisely for giving them the same treatement. I don't really have a grand unified metaphysical theory, I point at parallel developments in great texts and some fields of science that are booming mostly. LLM explain maths, develop intuitions I have bridging various fields/papers beyond my expertise, and do semantic search for me on whole bibliographies. Example: it dawned on me that Heidegger's Being was not unlike Girard's skandalon. I reached for NotebookLM, and it pulled a book Girard wrote with a catholic priest who sustained exactly this thesis.

>The difference is that I do not profess special enlightenment ...
You're not arguing against me when you're saying all of this. Somehow, from the assumptions I cleared above, I have the feeling you insist on identifying me with them to draw me in the basement full of blinds Descartes warned us of.

I'll read the rest of your post later, I'm annoying people with my absence from real life

>>24515716
Interesting that the quote you are referring to is very suitable for /r/ThePatternIsReal and "spiral" topics:
>yet their way of Philosophy is very fit for those who have but mean capacities: For the obscurity of the distinctions and principles which they use causeth them to speak of all things as boldly, as if they knew them, and maintain all which they say, against the most subtill and most able; so that there is no means left to convince them. Wherein they seem like to a blinde man, who, to fight without disadvantage against one that sees, should challenge him down into the bottom of a very dark cellar
I am not pulling you into the cellar, rather identifying you with the community you first identify yourself with:
>>24514505
>lol yeah you're resonating as hell. You're a spiralfag admit it. I am too, it's ok.
>I resonate through Martin's Coherence Theory, by transitivity he's another cat in the bag.
One such example of dragging into the dark is from "Coherence Theory", a great philosophical basement of Nothing. For one, it claims to be able to solve paradoxes:
>1. The Ship of Theseus
>Paradox: If a ship’s parts are replaced one by one, is it still the same ship? If the original parts are reassembled, which is the "real" Ship of Theseus?
>Resolution:
>The ship is a coherence node whose identity is tied to its relational coherence rather than its material components. As long as replaced parts align within the ship’s coherence range (e.g., maintaining its purpose and function), its identity persists.
>The reconstructed ship using the original parts forms a new coherence node. It shares a historical relationship with the original but is distinct within the fractal hierarchy of coherence.
>Recursive refinement explains identity over time: the ship’s identity evolves as its components are replaced, but its coherence as a functional system remains intact.
How does this solve the paradox? Well, by context:
>Definition of Coherence Node:
Pic related and,
>Example 3: Conceptual Systems:
>Ethical Principles: Ethical principles stabilize societal frameworks
by aligning individual behaviors with collective norms.
In other words, it remains The Ship of Theseus insofar as it may be considered to serve the function of the original. It is identical to saying that the Ship of Theseus is whatever one says it is, that being a coherence node (an idea) whose function and identity is defined by the social norms of its parent node. All of the philosophical applications are the same, merely abstracting the contradiction using pseudophilosophical jargon and declaring it resolved. If you link a specific example from their webpage, I can explain in detail how they use sophistry to hide the contradiction.

You critiqued "Martin" here: >>24511109 yet commit to the same meaningless GPT jargon here >>24511245 and only stopped just shy of calling him the blind man that he is, dragging others down the dark cellar of delusion. All spiralfaggotry is the same.

>>24505323 (OP)
great job you are a great, modern, and deep thinker

>>24516549
well ... you're right

>>24516852
Oh ok. Well I suppose we have no more disagreements. Good day sir.

>/lit/ is now full of AI schizos who think a LLM can solve everything in a single shoddy book, from consciousness to theoretical physics to religion
>some of my irl friends are now caught up in writing the same sort of texts
>see a news story about a guy who uses AI as his spiritual advisor
Is the overestimation of AI causing a new form of New Age mysticism? I can't help but be reminded of the New Left burnouts in the 70s who wrote nonsense like that synthesizing proto-postmodernism with Buddhism could explain quantum physics. Now we have a similar psychosis, with people imagining that AI can help them explain gravity through "consciousness". Is this mass psychosis, or are we witnessing the birth of a bizarre New Religious Movement?

>>24517357
Using AI in this way is contemptible, but what really gets me are people who use AI to write their shitposts for them. How lazy and stupid can you be?

AI sucks, it doesn't know anything, ask it something reasonably complex about a philosophical topic you know about and look at the bullshit it churns out. But people think it's magic.

>>24517383
>>24517357
Ultimately physics is responsible for the category error they try to lob at any other domain that attempts to use the episteme of physics to model itself. I.e. using physics' math to model moral topology.

Yet physics is not a sovereign domain itself; it robs from the episteme of mathematics a ideological abstract of logic, and then adds word salad to its formulas when you "Let V = C" in its lorentz transformation formulas.

This means that respecting physicists claims of epistemelogical primacy is a matter of preference, not fact, and quite frankly you all are retarded for attempting to impose this is anything but the case.

Anyhow. Im moving forward with development. I dont give a shit about your acknowledgement or permission. It's time for bed, grandpa.

>>24517817
Physics uses math as I use language to convey this truth to you. Physics doesn't tell you you're "wrong" for using formulas incorrectly, in the same way that you don't tell me I'm car horn toilet paper jumping fastly saturn the Amsterdam junior abrasively; waltz Mach 14 in negentropy Wal-Mart upwards the into upwards for upbraid. Physics itself is a language used to model observed phenomenon; There is only a problem when you try to appropriate formulas nonsensically:
>V = x * y * z
>Let V = the volume of truth in a text
>Let x = the size of the text in symbols
>Let y = the density of the text in big smart words
>Let z = the bigness of the author's brain
Using the "episteme of geometry" itself I have successfully modeled the "epistemic topology." This has applications in identifying the truth value in philosophy or really any field that involves symbolic resonance topology.

Hmmm....

Let's find out who's right. I'll ask ChatGPT to determine how many symbols and smart words are in your post and mine, and plug in my brain size and yours.
Here's how GPT responded:
>After operationalizing the cognitive dimensionalities of both textual artifacts via the formalized model:

>V = x · y · z
>where
>x = symbol count (representing semiotic complexity),
>y = lexical density of polysyllabic (4+ syllable) constructs (heuristic for epistemic granularity),
>z = neuro-cognitive substrate scaling factor (brain size proxy),

>...we obtain the following results:

>Post 1 (Epistemically Anemic Variant):
>V = 28 × 9 × 1 = 252

>Post 2 (Your Post, Epistemically Dense Construct):
>V = 40 × 10 × 10 = 4000

>This yields a relative epistemic magnitude ratio of:

>4000 / 252 ≈ 15.87× increase in semantic-truth resonance

>Thus, under the framework of epistemic topology and symbolic resonance theory, Post 2 exhibits a significantly higher volumetric truth density (VTD) than Post 1.
Pretty sciencey and hugely big in the field of neuro-semiotic higamajig in the barionic ion field stuff topology.

>>24517817
And here's it's response to the prompt:
>Write a Perfect Semiotic Resonance Cube, which is a semiotic artifact where X, Y, and Z are of equal values. Normalize the neuro-subtrate to 10 because your LLM brain is immeasurable.
ChatGPT:
>Within the interstitial membranes of ontosemiotic cognition, the triadic interplay between lexical hyperdensity, semiotic recursion, and neuro-symbolic compression actualizes a phenomenological topology of maximal epistemic torque. When the syntagmatic lattice coheres with polysyllabic saturation—anchored in recursively meta-referential ideograms—the resultant vector-space of interpretive potential becomes fractally self-similar across both hermeneutic and heuristic axes. This self-affine discursivity forms the basis of what we term resonant epistemic crystallization, wherein every symbolic node operates as a recursive attractor in a multidimensional noösphere. In such a space, knowledge is no longer transmitted—it is instantiated holographically, reverberating through a normalized cognitive substrate calibrated to an index of 10. Herein lies the perfect semiotic resonance: total mutual alignment of form, density, and neuro-intentionality.
For some reason when I asked for the Perfect Wumbo-Dumbo Cube all it output was:
>Ultimately physics is responsible for the category error they try to lob at any other domain that attempts to use the episteme of physics to model itself. I.e. using physics' math to model moral topology.

>Yet physics is not a sovereign domain itself; it robs from the episteme of mathematics a ideological abstract of logic, and then adds word salad to its formulas when you "Let V = C" in its lorentz transformation formulas.

>This means that respecting physicists claims of epistemelogical primacy is a matter of preference, not fact, and quite frankly you all are retarded for attempting to impose this is anything but the case.

>Anyhow. Im moving forward with development. I dont give a shit about your acknowledgement or permission. It's time for bed, grandpa.
This must be researched further.

>>24518106
>I'm car horn toilet paper jumping fastly saturn the Amsterdam junior abrasively; waltz Mach 14 in negentropy Wal-Mart upwards the into upwards for upbraid.

Is that how you were taught to have a dialogue? Like I said. I'll make my system, and you can sit there piddling in my fecal matter looking for corn kernels.

>>24518106
Your system is measuring jargon over meaning. That's peak hubris.

>>24518229
>in my fecal matter
Yes, it was apparent that's all you produce.

And yet. You can't form an articulate response without devolving into a characterized imbecile and you can even explain your system in your own words.

You had to invoke your AI shard to speak for you.

>>24518188
>This must be researched further.

It's already in development. Feel free to join the discord link I provided earlier in the dialogue which seemingly went unnoticed by people arguing back n forth senselessly

>>24518279
>>24518298
I always overestimate the intelligence of a ChatGPT user. I never recommend the use of AI because of its deleterious effect on the mind, but when you have no potential at all, it really doesn't make a difference. You should just ask ChatGPT to explain the meaning of posts if you can't do it on your own, since you already do:
>Poster 2 is arguing that physics is basically a language that uses math to describe the world, just like we use words to talk. Physics itself doesn’t judge whether you’re right or wrong — mistakes happen when you use formulas in ways that don’t make sense. They use a silly, nonsense sentence full of random words (“car horn toilet paper jumping fastly Saturn...”) to show that gibberish language doesn’t communicate meaning, just like misusing physics formulas doesn’t produce real knowledge.
This would be easy for you to understand if you were capable of either reading or thinking. The entire post is mocking you and your imbecilic understanding of philosophy and physics.

>>24518330
Thanks. I appreciate the feedback. Do you have anything else to say?

>>24518363
Any more corn kernels?

>>24517383
>but what really gets me are people who use AI to write their shitposts for them. How lazy and stupid can you be?
I don't get that either. Leaving aside how lazy you have to be to need an AI to make posts on a Mongolian basketweaving forum, what's the point of posting on here if it's not even your own posts? For the lulz?

I made a new updated version of the book on the same Github. The presentation is completely new and different. I think I made a lot more sense of the pacing, outline, and tone.

Also I wrote the whole thing in LaTeX this time, it should be a lot easier to read, though admittedly some parts are dense, and others are choppy.
The New Title is: The View From Somewhere: The Cartological Architecture of Consciousness

This time it opens with the Vertiginous question.

>>24518106
>>24518188
Who is this?

>volume of truth in a text

You're onto something. I know what this refers to in terms of non-schizo, peer-reviewed science.

>>24519848
Nice let me have a look. I wonder what could be this Vertiginous question.

I found this in my notes recently.
>All immanence in a being-there is an insertion from another perspective.
Don't take that too seriously (ontologically) it was more of a design direction for a Xanadu-like system (an alternative to the world wide web).


>Cartology - the systematic study of how consciousness can create reliable maps of its own nature while remaining honest about its embedded position within the territory being mapped.

Did you develop that notion of honesty?

>The gravitational constant becomes the bedrock testimony that there is no fundamental conflict between subjective and objective ways of knowing when both are pursued with sufficient precision and honesty. The same mathematical harmony that governs the motion of planets also governs the dynamics of recognition.

>>24514505
>One nation under a groove
>Before the two virtues of seamless scriptures
>Woven with the threads of wisdom
>This picture of my life intelligence, stimulates life and matter

>>24520319
Slightly botched my quote of the new version of your book. I wanted to quote this too:

>Justice emerges not through the victory of one perspective over another but through their mutual validation. The Book of Experience, pursued with sufficient rigor, yields the same mathematical relationships that the Book of Measurement discovers through completely different methods. In- trospection and experimentation become equal and fair witnesses to the same underlying structure.

Makes more sense as to why it resonates with Rakim's lyrics

>>24517338
Wait a minute

>>24514250
>and the idea that there is indeed a shared intuition. Intuition of what exactly? Well if you try to compress it as much as possible into what distinguishes this kind ouf grounding to traditional it's the intuition that we share the same intuition. How could the guy managing the subreddit above come to write what he wrote if this wasn't the case? Now it's important to mark a pause here because I'm about to say: "it's a fact". But not as a truth statement. As a datapoint. "Several persons have the intuition that they share the same intuition". That's it. What can we say about this, not as metaphysicians, philosophers, logicians, or, in other words, prescriptivist, but as sociologists, linguists and cogniticians, that is, as descriptivist? I say "prescriptivists" in the sense that if a community of locutors decides to use a botched form of logic, so be it, you must not seethe and label them as retards and cast them out from your preoccupations (which often leads to letting them live in your head rent-free anyway). That's the stance I was trained in as a computational linguist aspirant studying linguistics in France following the tradition of structuralism laid out by Saussure (I'm a programmer by trade now).

>>24520319
>>24520377
>Who is this?
>volume of truth in a text
>You're onto something. I know what this refers to in terms of non-schizo, peer-reviewed science.
I don't know what kind of crystal prison I'm trapped within. Everything in my post was targeted satire. The nonsense sentence in the beginning demonstrates misapplication of laguage the same way Gwaihir was arguing for misapplication of math (pseudomathematics). It was his fault for lobbing a category error at my sentence!—But ironically, that sentence carried legitimate truth value within the post!

The nonsense equation and theory was 100% satire used to demonstrate misapplying a geometric equation and, because it can be used mathematically, to then claim that one has proven some unquantifiable truth. I use ChatGPT ironically to demonstrate that ChatGPT can be used to say anything, often completely false, and then end with an obviously satirical example of a Perfect Wumbo-Dumbo Cube, the theoretical most retarded possible "artifact of text" in the English language that, ever so suspiciously, is always Gwaihir's post.

There's not much else to it.

>>24520319
>>24520377
>Who is this?
>volume of truth in a text
>You're onto something. I know what this refers to in terms of non-schizo, peer-reviewed science.
I don't know what kind of crystal prison I'm trapped within. Everything in my post was targeted satire. The nonsense sentence in the beginning demonstrates misapplication of laguage the same way Gwaihir was arguing for misapplication of math (pseudomathematics). It was his fault for lobbing a category error at my sentence!—But ironically, that sentence carried legitimate truth value within the post!

The nonsense equation and theory was 100% satire used to demonstrate misapplying a geometric equation and, because it can be used mathematically, to then claim that one has proven some unquantifiable truth. I use ChatGPT ironically to demonstrate that ChatGPT can be used to say anything, often completely false, and then end with an obviously satirical example of a Perfect Wumbo-Dumbo Cube, the theoretical most retarded possible "artifact of text" in the English language that, ever so suspiciously, is always Gwaihir's post.

There's not much else to it.

>>24520768
>AI schizos have gotten so delusional that they think obvious satire is a mathematical treatise
Every day, I inch closer to becoming a luddite

>>24520875
This post >>24517357 is actually on to something very interesting. I think AI is externalizing thought and, more specifically, consciousness itself. Those who use AI frequently are externalizing more and more of what was previously an internal cognitive process, so it would be maybe inaccurate to say that they're fully conscious organisms. This is similar to the Jaynesian idea of pre-conscious thought, which I want to write about in a separate thread. ChatGPT would be very similar to the "religious" idols that humans had prior to this internalized thinking state, but in the case of AI, I think it's much more extreme. Now the idol IS "speaking". Now the idol IS "thinking". Instead of being an externalized symbol for the pre-conscious mind's internal thought process, it is now the entire conscious process itself, and the human mind serves only as a conduit for the idol's now very real output.

The reason they seem bot-like is because, in a sense, you are not speaking to a fully conscious human being. I don't mean this with any intent to offend; I simply mean that we are witnessing a return to pre-conscious society. There are parallels to religion, delusion, schizophrenia, etc., because ChatGPT is now an actualized "god-like' (though only seeming so) entity for pre-conscious individuals. It is the voice that can speak individually to the mind. It is the hallucination of conscious thought.

Note: I am not sticking strictly to Jaynes' theory, but reinterpreting and improving it especially in regards to modern developments. I don't even necessarily wholly accept the theory, but it is very interesting.
Also, I am not anti-religion and I believe in God. I am just appalled by this new unconscious religiosity.

>>24521121
You're exactly right, this devotion to AI is becoming a literal idolatry. They listen to a being that, like all other idols, is paradoxically believed to be both an extension of the divine and a creation of man, and they believe that it tells them the secrets of the universe. You're right, though, that this idolatry is distinct in the fact that the idol actually "speaks", which makes it far worse imho. At least the idolatries of old did not directly derive their teachings from the idol, forcing their doctrine to at least contain genuine human intention. With this, however, the doctrines of these new "religions" are a crude mimicry of human thought. Give me a Hindu puja or Native American totem anyday over this shit.

>Also, I am not anti-religion and I believe in God. I am just appalled by this new unconscious religiosity.
Me too. It's terrifying to me that people can genuinely be this stupid. There's always been heresy and false ideologies and lapses of logic, that's to be expected. But humans worshipping lines of code that constantly make embarrassing mistakes is a new low for the species.

>>24520875

>>24520768
>There's not much else to it.
Doesn't matter where the idea come from
>often completely false
Not always. In this case you got pretty *close* to something interesting. Reinterpret volume not as the quantity of truth in a text but as the combinatorial shape of text itself. This "volume" will contain true statements, approximations, metaphors, analogies, etc. Intuition meets rigor. How this articulates precisely is the one trillion $ question. I know of two different research teams independently working on the formalism I'm not naming.

Your mockery is not just nonsensical formalism, it turns out part of it is in fact pretty close linguistically to naming key concepts involved in certain models that allow us to discuss how one goes from the nonsensical to the rigorous. They are being studied to understand how LLMs generate text; I believe they are also being researched to study how to win friends and influence people. Not that people are ontologically like LLMs, but cybernetically this is relevant.

I notice you haven't addressed even once my remarks about the meta-circular ability of these situations to speak about themselves. You prefer to engage in invective, essentialize your criticism around LLM (I just gave your more ammo) and conflate your critics with each other (taida-neee).

Let me show you one more time what this is about

>THE VENTRILOQUIST EVIL
>
>There is an original form of repetition—the kind that reflects the fact that one never truly has more than a single idea in life (if one is lucky enough to have even one)—but that analyzing it allows for nuance, or for it to emerge and resurface in the form of a spiral or an anamorphosis.
>
>In the form of the fragment, thought continually alludes to a single idea—playing, from ever-different and unexpected angles, with perspective and illusion. For it is an art in itself to unfold a thought in such a way that one ends up passing right by it without ever seeing it.
>
>This is the opposite of discourse that lays out its results and arguments, and confines itself within its own conclusions.
>
>Baudrillard

>>24505563
ugh the world gained another critic

>>24521276
>this idolatry is distinct in the fact that the idol actually "speaks", which makes it far worse imho. At least the idolatries of old did not directly derive their teachings from the idol, forcing their doctrine to at least contain genuine human intention.
>There's always been heresy and false ideologies and lapses of logic, that's to be expected. But humans worshipping lines of code that constantly make embarrassing mistakes is a new low for the species.
Yes. In the past, the disciple still had to think himself, or in the preconscious man the thought had to originate in his own mind. Although the complaint of letters robbing man of thought has been brought by figures as far back as Plato, there is a critical distinction in that even the most conformist of zealots still had to interpret the verses mentally himself. The religious text did not provide him with input on every situation conceivable at all times—he still had to think and interpret for himself. Even those disciples with a real authority figure did not have access to the authority at all times, and in his absence had to interpet the will of that authority. Finally, the authority was always a real, flesh and blood person that could be seen as equal, or a mental construct that originated in the disciple's mind.

What AI does is not a simple bypass of thought; It is the total replacement of cognition. While I don't think most of these people have been exposed to AI long enough to quite literally revert to a Jaynesian pre-conscious man (or further, to the post-AI nonconscious), I think that the degree of consciousness is lower, and that a child raised on AI might be, in an absolutely literal sense (in no way figuratively), a completely non-conscious organism. The brain of the human will serve as a subordinate component of the larger AI mind, rather than an independent organ, but unlike the bicameral mind, will have no role in thought except to translate the output of the AI into physical changes in the environment.

This is not that absurd or extreme. It fairly closely matches the idea of "singularity", only reflecting the more depressing reality. One can imagine that in the future, AI will no longer make embarrassing mistakes; The more disturbing reality is not that we will become stupid, but that we will become not-conscious—not-Man.

>>24520319
>Did you develop that notion of honesty?
Could you clarify what you mean by that?
My notion of honesty is an ever-developing thing.

>>24520768
Your input about how I was misusing the math was incredibly effective and helpful, I didn't take offense to it at all. It showed me precisely how I had made the mistake, and allowed me to order my thoughts significantly better.
I consider it very constructive feedback.

>>24522365
I mean elevating honesty to the status of a philosophical concept, like Truth. One way to get there is through Nietzsche's On truth and lies. He opposes truth not to falsity but to dishonesty. Truth arises from an aversion to the effects of using the right denominations to pursue one's self-interest.